International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Teachers’ perception of leadership styles and involvement during

the COVID-19 pandemic crisis
Lay Huah Goh
Education Studies Department, Academy of Future Education, Xian Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: During the COVID-19 pandemic, educators had to move their teaching and learning to online
Crisis leadership platforms. Such a change was unforeseen and therefore became an educational crisis. In order to
Transformational leadership execute the change in teaching strategies, teachers expect a set of behaviour and actions from
Transactional leadership
their leaders to facilitate and support these changes. This survey study used the Multifactor
Laissez faire leadership
change management
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to investigate 124 teachers’ views about their preferred and
Online learning perceived effective leadership behaviour and actions that would support them and the challenges
they faced with their teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Findings indicated that there
was a significant difference between teachers’ preferred leadership and teachers’ perceived
experience of leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The preferred leadership style was
transformational leadership.

1. Introduction

This study addressed the important role of leaders during a time of crisis. The specific context of the study was the lockdown period
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis in 2020, its impact on education had been un­
precedented. Malaysia detected its first case of COVID-19 in late February, 2020 (WHO, 2020). In the efforts to control its spread and
the mortality rate, the Ministry of Health implemented the Movement Control Order (MCO) nationwide on March 18, 2020 (Ain
Umaira Shah et al., 2020). During the MCO period, schools had to close. The traditional teacher-centred learning in the classroom had
to shift to online learning. At that point in time, teachers had to scramble to think of ways to retain their students’ attention remotely,
to utilize online tools to deliver lessons and to create student engagement (Schleicher, 2020; Walker, 2020).
Edeh et al. (2020) in his study on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on education verified that educators and learners relied
on technology to continue learning amidst the crisis. Practically overnight, teachers had to change from traditional face-to-face in­
struction towards online learning. However, most teachers were unprepared and untrained to adopt online technologies and new
teaching strategies. The UN called out to the world leaders and to the entire education community and exhorted on the importance of
preventing the learning crisis from accelerating into a generational catastrophe (UN, 2020). Such a change was unforeseen and un­
planned and therefore became an educational crisis. This was where educational leaders from all levels were needed to guide teachers
to accommodate to the change and to ensure smooth and successful transition throughout the change from traditional classroom to
online learning. This situation called for crisis leadership to step in and shoulder the change with immediacy. Teachers would expect a
set of actions and behaviour from their leaders to facilitate, support and execute these changes. Leaders would be expected to possess
the readiness to apply a crisis leadership style that could accommodate the demands of changes during this period of disruption. Where

E-mail address: LayHuah.Goh@xjtlu.edu.cn.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102253
Received 20 January 2023; Received in revised form 18 August 2023; Accepted 25 September 2023
Available online 3 October 2023
0883-0355/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

the crisis leadership style fell short of expectations, the disruptions might not have been resolved effectively and efficiently.
The purpose of this research was therefore to study retrospectively the teachers’ views about their preferred leadership and their
perceived experience of the leadership in their workplace during this pandemic crisis. The closure of schools and higher institutions
disrupted teaching plans. Online education, viewed in this context as a new education method, was in most circumstances an
incomplete system. In such a situation where teachers were at the grassroots of educational change implementation, information from
them about the leadership styles that worked would have been useful to minimize the negative impacts. The difference in preferred and
perceived experience of leadership during a crisis meant serious implications in terms of work efficiency and effectiveness and teacher
morale, attitude and motivation. The rationale for this research is that knowledge of such differences would allow leaders to act in the
right manner during future similar situations.

1.1. Research objectives and research questions

This research investigated the perceptions of teachers about leadership during a crisis, in terms of the leadership styles and the level
of leadership involvement that they preferred to encounter as they struggled to change their teaching strategies during the COVID-19
pandemic crisis, as well as the leadership that they perceived to have experienced in their workplace during this period. In this
research, leadership involvement referred to actions and behaviour of the educational leaders in handling the lockdown of education
and the move away from in-person teaching and learning during the pandemic.
The leadership investigated in this research will focus on the level of leadership involvement and the types of leadership style
exhibited by the leaders. Perception of preferred leadership would reflect the teachers’ expectations of their leaders, whereas their
perceived leadership would indicate their actual experience of the leadership during the pandemic crisis. The research questions were:

1 What were teachers’ preferred leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis?
2 What were teachers’ perceived leadership in their workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis?
3 Was there a significant difference between teachers’ preferred leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and teachers’
perceived leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis?

1.2. Hypothesis

H0 There was no significant difference between teachers’ preferred leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and teachers’
perceived leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.

2. Review of literature

Literature review will first discuss the educational scenario during the COVID-19 Pandemic lockdown and the resulting shift of
teaching and learning to online platforms. Due to the suddenness of the pandemic, the lockdown created a crisis in which a particular
kind of leadership is necessary. The literature will discuss the nature of crisis leadership. Three types of leadership styles based on the
Multifactor Leadership Model will underpin the framework of this research.

2.1. The COVID-19 pandemic crisis and schooling

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in about 188 countries that closed schools, affecting more than 1.7 billion children, youth and
their families (OECD, 2020). A past research (Carlsson et al.,2005, in Burgess & Sieversten, 2020) that was conducted on the number of
schooling days and test scores among young men showed that extra ten schooling days significantly raised test scores by 1% of a
standard deviation. Another study conducted on the total hours of instruction in a week showed an increase in the test scores by 6% of a
standard deviation with an extra hour of instruction per week over the school year (Lavy, 2015, in Burgess & Sieversten, 2020). These
data suggested that the closure of schools during this pandemic might have disrupted the learning process of students. Additionally, as
school is not just a place for students to gain knowledge but also a place for students to develop skills such as social skills, the closure of
school might have more negative disruptions than it was initially thought.

2.2. The shift to online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown

In most traditional educational institutions where face to face delivery and instruction were the norm, the immediate switch to
online learning was a paradigm shift in pedagogical practices. Fullan et al. (2020) provided a three-stage model to describe how
schools adapt to a change, beginning with disruption, moving to transition, and finally to reimagining. The COVID-19 pandemic caused
unprecedented disruptions in instruction. Educators overnight were forced to move from classroom instruction to struggling to cope
with the change towards online teaching. Although in the past some teachers had received e-learning positively, there were more
resistance than acceptance. But in order to continue the learning process of their students under these circumstances, educators had
hardly any opportunity to resist the educational change. Although the use of technology became more necessary than ever, a lot that
were utilized were untested and were improvised with trials and errors along the way. Most teachers had to change their teaching
strategies mid-way into their semester without prior training or guidance of best practices or technical support. Amidst the disruption,
they felt unhinged, isolated and directionless, at loss on how to get answers to their concerns about the cognitive, social and emotional

2
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

well-being of their students in online learning environments. In this disruption stage (Fullan et al. 2020), it was crucial for the
educational leaders to step up and design innovative ways to quickly resolve the issues to support the teachers’ transition towards
teaching in an online platform and to protect the students’ learning processes (Douglas, 2020).

2.3. Educational leadership during a crisis

There is a lack of universal definition for crisis, but it is generally accepted as a situation that is highly ambiguous, low probability
of occurrence, offers little time to respond and could lead to potential positive or negative change (Bhaduri, 2019). The resultant
situation during the COVID-19 pandemic fit this description. Because most institutions were caught off-guard, there was a lack of
evidence-based guideline for school leadership during the pandemic. In the beginning, nobody had enough information to decide if
schools required a new shift or remained as before. At this juncture, the leader’s role would affect the resilience of teachers. When
teachers’ resilience increases, the chances of the school surviving and thriving will increase. Therefore, there needed to be crisis
responsiveness for educational leadership.
During the crisis, the school leader needed to make careful decisions when dealing with the community and must work towards
fostering trust within the community. In addition, every decision made by the leader would be scrutinized (Zhang et al., 2012). The
stakeholders might perceive that school leaders were protecting themselves and were not sharing information, leading to the belief
that leaders were not making decisions based on the best interest of the students (Sutherland, 2017). Leaders must also ensure that they
were visible and reliable during the crisis and reconfigure new ways to connect with students and support their well-being (Harris,
2020). They had to make difficult decisions and communicate with teams to ensure that everyone was on the same page.
For many teachers, online teaching was a completely new field. For some senior teachers it was a challenge to start using online
teaching methods without preparation. At this time, helping teachers improve their professional skills became particularly important
to leaders. It was also important to establish communication and share experiences with other schools. Sharing experiences with other
school leaders not only enabled faster decision-making, but also provided resources to help each other (Anderson, 2020).

2.4. Theoretical underpinning

This research employed the Multifactor Leadership model (Bass, 1990, Fig. 1) which described the leadership attributes associated
with three different leadership styles: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership (Allen, 2010). The results from the

Fig. 1. Multifactor leadership model (Bass, 1990).

3
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

study will shed light on the leadership behaviors and actions as well as the leadership styles that teachers preferred and perceived to be
exhibited by their leaders during the time of crisis. Critics of the model questioned its multi-dimensional structure and the way the
sub-dimensions of the MLQ combine to form a unitary model. Admittedly, no leadership survey instrument can account for all
leadership dimensions, but the MLQ represents a reliable measure to carry out research and expand the understanding of leadership. In
addition, a study conducted by Antonakis et al. (2003) demonstrated that the MLQ was a valid and reliable instrument to measure the
full range theory of leadership.
The characteristics of transformational leadership include idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,
and individualised consideration. Transformational leaders are role models for subordinates as they usually have high standards of
moral and ethical behaviours (Towler, 2019). Not only do they provide followers with a strong sense of purpose, vision, and mission,
but they also are more willing to share risks with them, thereby gaining their followers’ appreciation, respect, and trust (Alahmad,
2016) through idealised influence. In addition, transformational leaders seek out different perspectives in solving problems and
provide intellectual stimulation to get subordinates to look at these problems from a different perspective (Hughes, 2014). They
advocate critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Hall et al., 2019) and also nurture subordinates to think independently in order
to make them autonomous (Towler, 2019). Transformational leaders act as coaches or mentors, consult with subordinates and care
about their personal and professional development. They demonstrate individual consideration and treat subordinates as individuals,
rather than as team members, and also identify their abilities, needs, and expectations (Hughes, 2014), thereby breaking down barriers
and coaching them to a higher level of performance (Desbrow, 2016).
The transactional leadership characteristics include contingent reward and management-by-exception (Russell, 2017). The
transactional leader sets goals for subordinates, explain the expectations for their works, and define their roles, authority, and re­
sponsibility levels and related processes so that they understand what must be achieved. Subordinates will respond to these in­
structions by achieving the expected standards of performance and hence receiving contingent rewards in return (Rothfelder et al.,
2016). In addition, the transactional leader exhibits management-by-exception based on monitoring performance and takes two forms
(University of Leicester, n.d.); In the active form, leaders actively monitor followers for deviations from standards and take corrective
actions if necessary (Arenas et al., 2017). In the passive form, leaders only passively take corrective actions when they feel compelled to
participate, which is often too late.
The laissez-faire leadership style is simply a non-leadership style (Vilhauer, 2018). It is passive avoidant and is ineffective in pro­
duction. This kind of leader makes little demands on his team members and prefers to keep the status quo in any situation (Arenas et al.,
2018). The laissez faire leader is happy to abdicate authority and responsibility, reluctant to make decisions and accepts whatever the
team members want to do. Consequently team members under this leadership may not develop and grow due to lack of feedback,
motivation and support (Wongyanon et al., 2015).

3. Methodology

A survey research design was employed for this study. The instrument was adapted from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
Form 6-S (MLQ- 6S) which was developed and validated by Bass and Avolio (Moon et al., 2019). Reliability scores for the MLQ
subscales ranged from moderate to good (Antonakis et al., 2003). The respondents were teachers from various educational institutions
in the Klang Valley in Malaysia and included those from government as well as private educational sectors.

3.1. Instrumentation

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 6S collected data on teachers’ views about leadership styles that would
support the challenges they faced during the COVID-19 crisis, as well as their views about their education leaders’ level of expected and
the exhibited actions and behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. There was a total of 42 items; 21 items in each of the
two sections. These two sections addressed the three main components of leadership behaviour (which were transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership) across 7 factors (Table 1).
The first purpose of this study was to investigate the level of leadership actions and behaviour exhibited by the educational leaders
in handling the lockdown of education teaching and learning during the pandemic. The second purpose of the study was to examine the
teachers’ preferred and perceived leadership styles as they faced the COVID-19 pandemic experience.
There were 3 sections in the questionnaire. In Section A, there were four demographic questions, namely age, gender and level
taught and types of institution. In Section B, a five-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree," "disagree," “neutral”, "agree," to

Table 1
Leadership styles and sub-themes based on the questionnaire.
Factors Questionnaire Items Leadership

1 Idealized influence (items 1, 8 and 15) Transformational leadership

2 Inspirational motivation (items 2, 9 and 19)
3 Intellectual stimulation (items 3, 10 and 17)
4 Individualized consideration (items 4, 11 and 18)
1 Contingent rewards (items 5,12 and 19) Transactional leadership
2 Management by exception (items 6, 13 and 20)
1 Passive/avoidant (items 7, 14 and 21) Laissez-faire leadership

4
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

"strongly agree" was used for the 21 questions close-ended items on the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to assess how much
they agree that each statement fit their expectations from a leader during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown and its resultant impact
on educational practices. A “strongly agree” statement about the preferred leadership would indicate high expectations of such
leadership action and behaviour from the leader. In Section C, respondents were asked how much they agree that each statement fit the
description of their leader’s actual actions and behaviour during the pandemic lockdown in education, on the 5-point Likert scale from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Similarly, a “strongly disagree” statement about the perceived leadership would indicate low
incidence of actual experience of such leadership action and behaviour from the leader.

3.2. Data collection procedures and analysis

The survey questionnaire was created on Google Form and administered online. The questionnaire introduced the purpose of
research. Data collection was internet-based. This method of data collection was most convenient during a lockdown. Respondents
could complete the questionnaire through volunteer participation from home in a self-chosen and familiar setting, at a time that suited
them and thus greater authenticity of responses may be obtained. It also reduced cost and time taken to distribute, gather and process
data. Internet-based surveys would also prompt respondents for missed items to reduce missed entries. A URL link of the internet-based
survey was sent to teachers in government schools, private schools as well as non-formal learning centres in the Klang valley via email
and WhatsApp. This did not represent the entire location but a small cross-section of the population of the area. They were given one
week to complete the survey. To ensure confidentiality, respondents were not required to reveal their identity. Respondents could
withdraw at any time by exiting the page if they decided not to continue. The data harvested from the Google Form were transferred
into SPSS. The results were analysed and reported descriptively for research questions 1 and 2. Paired samples T-test were performed
for research question 3 and the hypothesis.

4. Report of results

4.1. Demographic details

The target population consisted of teachers who were working in the Klang Valley in Malaysia. Teachers referred to all educators
who worked in either government or private settings, including nursery/ and pre-school, primary school, secondary school, university
and education centres.
The questionnaire gathered a total of 124 responses. All the participants came from different educational institutions, from the
government education system, and private teaching institutions (Table 2).
A reliability test was performed on the scale items. The preferred leadership subscale consisted of 21 items (α = .904), and the
perceived leadership subscale also consisted of 21 items (α = .960), and the overall leadership subscale consisted of 42 items (α = .922)
(Table 3). The Cronbach Alpha indicated that the instrument had excellent reliability and was acceptable for further analysis.
The following discussion of results will inform the teachers’ preferred leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and their
corresponding perceived experience of leadership in their workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, followed by a discussion of
the hypothesis. A quick look at the overall results indicates a gap between the perceived leadership styles (mean = 3.85, n == 124) and
preferred leadership styles (mean = 3.16. N == 124) during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis (Table 4).

4.2. Teachers’ preferred leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis

This section discusses research question 1: What were teachers’ preferred leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis? The
leadership investigated in this research question will focus on the preferred level of leadership involvement and the preferred types of
leadership style.

Table 2
Demographic details.
Variable Category n %

Gender Male 24 19.4

Female 100 80.6
Age Group 18-27 13 10.6
28-37 25 20.3
38-47 28 22.8
48-57 50 40.7
58-67 7 5.7
Level Taught Nursery/Pre-school 6 4.8
Primary School 42 33.9
Secondary School 61 49.2
University 12 9.7
Education Centers 3 2.4
Type of Institution Private 66 55.5
Government 53 44.5

5
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

Table 3
Reliability statistics for leadership during crisis.
Leadership Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items

preferred leadership .904 21

perceived leadership .960 21
overall leadership .922 42

Table 4
Paired samples statistics.
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Preferred Leadership 3.8473 124 .49575 .04452

Perceived Leadership 3.1571 124 .87599 .07867

Table 5 summarized the mean scores for each preferred leadership factor, as well as the overall mean level (mean = 3.85, N ==
124). The expectations of the teachers on their leaders were generally high for all factors, with the exception of passive avoidant
leadership. The results indicated that the teachers’ preferred high levels of leadership involvement were Individual Consideration
(mean = 4.24, N == 124), Intellectual stimulation (mean = 4.188, N = 124), Inspirational Motivation (mean = 4.14, N == 124), and
Idealized Influence (mean = 4.08, N == 124). These were factors of Transformational Leadership. Table 6 displayed the mean score of
each item of preferred leadership action and behavior.
During the crisis, teachers strongly agreed that they preferred leaders who helped others develop themselves (mean = 4.5, Item 4,
Individualized Consideration). Teachers also strongly preferred a leader who provided others with new ways of looking at problematic
things (mean = 4.31, Item 10 Intellectual Stimulation), and who expressed with a few simple words what could and should be done
(mean = 4.28, Item 2 Inspirational Motivation).
Teachers also preferred high levels of leadership that were transactional, for example, they highly preferred a leader who provided
recognition and rewards when others reached their goals (mean = 4.29, Item 12 Contingent rewards). In contrast, the least preferred
leadership was the passive avoidant style which was the Laissez-faire leadership (mean = 3.23, N == 124). Teachers least preferred
leaders who were content to let others continue working in the same ways as always (mean = 3.02, item 7 Passive avoidant), and
leaders who accepted that whatever others want to do was alright with him (mean = 2.96, Item 14 Passive avoidant).
Transformational leadership style was the most preferred leadership style (Mean = 4.16, N == 124) although the preference for
transactional leadership was also high (Mean = 3.91, N= 124). There was a marked lack of preference for laissez leadership (Mean =
3.23, N == 124) (Table 7).

4.3. Teachers’ perceived leadership in their workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis

This section discussed research question 2: What were teachers’ perceived leadership in their workplace during the COVID-19
pandemic crisis? The leadership investigated in this research question focused on the perceived level of leadership involvement
and the perceived types of leadership style exhibited by the leaders.
Table 8 summarized the perceived mean scores for leadership involvement based on each factor. Overall, teachers perceived that
the level of their leaders’ involvement were mediocre. Within of this mediocre leadership involvement, teachers reported more
experience of transactional leadership, which was Management by Exception (mean = 3.42, N == 124). Teachers agreed that their
leaders were satisfied when others met agreed-upon standards (mean = 3.6, item 6, Management by Exception), and told others the
standards they had to know to carry out their work (mean = 3.44, item 20, Management by Exception). There were also some ex­
periences of transformational leadership, especially Inspirational Motivation (mean = 3.27, N= 124) as well as Idealized Influence
(mean = 3.22, N == 124) and Individualized Consideration (mean = 3.19, N == 124). Teachers agreed that their leaders expressed
with a few simple words what could and should be done (mean = 3.46, item 2, Inspirational Motivation), and helped others develop
themselves (mean = 3.43, item 4, Individualized Consideration). Interestingly, teachers observed that they least experienced the

Table 5
Mean scores for each preferred leadership factor.
N Mean Std. Deviation

Preferred Individual Consideration 124 4.2392 .59288

Preferred Intellectual Stimulation 124 4.1882 .60597
Preferred Inspirational Motivation 124 4.1425 .55611
Preferred Idealized Influence 124 4.0806 .70917
Preferred Contingent Reward 124 3.9516 .72719
Preferred Management-by-exception 124 3.8656 .62602
Preferred Passive avoidant 124 3.2258 .82151
Preferred Leadership Style (Overall) 124 3.8473 0.662
Valid N (listwise) 124

6
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

Table 6
Preferred leadership action and behavior.
Items Preferred Leadership actions and behavior Mean score

4 helps others develop themselves 4.5

10 provides others with new ways of looking at problematic things 4.31
12 provides recognition/rewards when others reach their goals 4.29
2 expresses with a few simple words what we could and should do 4.28
1 makes others feel good to be around him/her 4.27
6 is satisfied when others meet agreed-upon standards 4.19
8 enables others to have complete faith in him/her 4.19
16 helps other staff find meaning in their work. 4.17
20 tells others the standards they have to know to carry out their work. 4.14
17 gets others to rethink ideas that they had never questioned before. 4.13
3 makes others think about old problems in new ways 4.12
18 gives personal attention to others who seem rejected 4.11
11 lets others know how he/she thinks they are doing. 4.1
9 provides appealing images about what we can do 3.98
19 calls to attention what others can get for what they accomplish 3.81
15 makes others proud to be associated with him/her 3.79
5 tells others what to do if they want to be rewarded for their work 3.75
21 asks no more of others than what is absolutely essential 3.68
13 does not try to change anything as long as status quo is working well 3.27
7 is content to let others continue working in the same ways as always 3.02
14 accepts that whatever others want to do is OK with him/her 2.96

Table 7
Preferred leadership styles.
Preferred Leadership Styles
Factors (Mean score) Std Deviation

Transformational Leadership 4.16 0.62

Transactional Leadership 3.91 0.68
Laissez-faire Leadership 3.23 0.82

Table 8
Mean scores for perceived leadership involvement based on each factor.
N Mean Std. Deviation

Perceived Management-By-Exception 124 3.4220 .85128

Perceived Inspirational Motivation 124 3.2742 1.02017
Perceived Idealized Influence 124 3.2177 1.04466
Perceived Individual Consideration 124 3.1855 1.04748
Perceived Intellectual Stimulation 124 3.1183 .98791
Perceived Contingent Reward 124 2.9758 1.13750
Perceived Passive/avoidant 124 2.9032 .95402
Perceived Leadership 124 3.1571 1.006
Valid N (listwise) 124

passive avoidant style (mean = 2.90, N == 124), for example, there was less experience of leaders who accepted that whatever others
want to do was alright with him/her (mean = 2.73, item 14, Passive avoidant). Table 9 displayed the mean score of each item of
perceived leadership action and behavior.
Teachers perceived that transformational and transactional leadership styles practised by their leaders were mediocre (mean =
3.20, N == 124), and even lower laissez faire leadership (mean = 2.90, N == 124) as well (Table 10).

4.4. The difference between teachers’ preferred leadership and perceived leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis

This section answered the research question “Is there a significant difference between teachers’ preferred leadership during the
COVID-19 pandemic crisis and teachers’ perceived leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis?”. It also addressed the Hypothesis
H0 “There was no significant difference between teachers’ preferred leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and teachers’
perceived leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis”.
Paired samples T-test was performed on the samples for preferred leadership and perceived leadership (Table 11).
Table 11 indicated that the mean difference for the data was 0.69 (3.85-3.16). The confidence interval showed that the true dif­
ference in means was between 0.87 and 0.51. Therefore, 95% of the time, the true difference in means would be different from 0. The p-
value of 0.00 is much smaller than 0.05. The difference in teachers’ perception of leadership between preferred leadership (Mean =

7
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

Table 9
Mean score of each item of perceived leadership action and behavior.
Items Perceived Leadership Experience Mean

6 is satisfied when others meet agreed-upon standards 3.6

2 expresses with a few simple words what we could and should do 3.46
20 tells others the standards they have to know to carry out their work. 3.44
4 helps others develop themselves 3.43
1 makes others feel good to be around him/her 3.32
8 enables others to have complete faith in him/her 3.26
13 does not try to change anything as long as status quo is working well 3.23
16 helps others find meaning in their work. 3.22
11 lets others know how he/she thinks they are doing. 3.21
3 makes others think about old problems in new ways 3.15
9 provides appealing images about what we can do 3.15
10 provides others with new ways of looking at problematic things 3.15
12 provides recognition/rewards when others reach their goals 3.09
15 makes others proud to be associated with him/her 3.07
17 gets fellow colleagues to rethink ideas that they had never questioned before. 3.06
7 is content to let others continue working in the same ways always 3.01
19 call to attention what others can get for what they accomplish 2.98
21 asks no more of others than what is absolutely essential 2.98
18 gives personal attention to others who seem rejected 2.92
5 tells others what to do if they want to be rewarded for their work 2.85
14 accepts that whatever others want to do is OK with him/her 2.73

Table 10
Perceived leadership styles.
Perceived Leadership Styles (Mean score) Std Deviation

Transformational Composite 3.20 1.03

Transactional Composite 3.20 0.99
Laissez-faire 2.90 0.95

3.85; SD = 0.496) and perceived leadership (Mean = 3.16; SD = 0.876) was significant (t (123) = 7.666; p < 0.05). Therefore, the null
hypothesis of no difference was rejected with a high degree of confidence and with the true difference in means not equal to zero. It
could be concluded that there was a significant difference between teachers’ preferred leadership and teachers’ perceived leadership
during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.
Paired samples t-test was also performed to examine any difference in the expectations and experience of the three leadership styles
(Table 12).
Again, the results showed that there were significant differences between teachers’ preferred and perceived transformational
leadership (t (123) = 9.924; p < 0.05), their preferred and perceived transactional leadership (t (123) = 7.281; p < 0.05) and even
between their preferred and perceived laissez faire leadership (t (123) = 3.243; p < 0.05). There was notably a high level of difference
between teachers’ preferred and perceived transformational leadership (mean difference = 0.964) and transactional leadership (mean
difference = 0.710), whereas the difference in the laissez faire leadership was relatively much lower (mean difference = 0.323). This
meant that the teachers’ leadership experience of transformational leadership and transactional leadership fell far short of their ex­
pectations (Table 13). Respondents did not prefer laissez faire leadership and notably did not experience high level for this leadership,
therefore the difference was not obvious.
To reiterate, this study rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that there was a significant difference between teachers’
preferred leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and teachers’ perceived leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.
The mean values of the preferred and perceived leadership actions and behavior of the educational leaders in handling the
lockdown of teaching and learning during the pandemic were shown below (Table 14):
In comparing the preferred leadership factors against the perceived leadership factors, it was observed that all the mean values of
the former were higher than the latter for the same factor (Table 15). This meant that the teachers’ leadership experience did not meet
their expectations. The factors with the biggest differences were Intellectual stimulation (mean difference = 1.07) and Individualized
Consideration (mean difference = 1.05). This meant for example that teachers had high expectations that the leader provided them

Table 11
Paired samples T-test for preferred leadership and perceived leadership.
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Preferred Leadership Perceived Leadership .69016 1.00258 .09003 .51194 .86838 7.666 123 .000

8
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

Table 12
Paired samples test of the three leadership styles.
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper

Pair 1 Preferred: Laissez Faire Leadership .32258 1.10753 .09946 .12571 .51945 3.243 123 .002
Perceived: Laissez Faire Leadership
Pair 2 Preferred Transformational Leadership .96371 1.08139 .09711 .77148 1.15594 9.924 123 .000
Perceived Transformational Leadership
Pair 3 Preferred Transactional Leadership .70968 1.08531 .09746 .51675 .90260 7.281 123 .000
Perceived Transactional Leadership

Table 13
Paired samples mean statistics.
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Preferred: Laissez Faire Leadership 3.2258 124 .82151 .07377

Perceived: Laissez Faire Leadership 2.9032 124 .95402 .08567
Pair 2 Preferred Transformational Leadership 4.1626 124 .53648 .04818
Perceived Transformational Leadership 3.1989 124 .95877 .08610
Pair 3 Preferred Transactional Leadership 3.9086 124 .60723 .05453
Perceived Transactional Leadership 3.1989 124 .89177 .08008

with new ways of looking at problematic things but in reality they experienced a lower level of such experience (mean difference =
1.16, item 10, Intellectual stimulation). There were also high expectations of personal attention which were not met (mean difference
= 1.19, item 18 Individualized Consideration).
Transactional leadership expectations also fell short. For example, teachers’ high expectations of being rewarded when they
reached their goals were not met (mean difference = 1.2, item 12, Contingent Reward).
Interestingly laissez faire leadership was low on the preferred list and teachers also had low level experiences of it. For example,
teachers did not prefer leaders who were content to let others continue working in the same ways as always during the crisis and
fortunately they did not experience any difference (mean difference = 0.01, item 7, Passive avoidant).

5. Discussion of results

The results obtained showed that overall the teachers had high expectations of their leaders’ actions and behaviour during the
pandemic crisis (Mean = 3.85). The majority expected their leaders to act as transformational leaders (mean = 4.16) and to a lesser
extent also as transactional leaders (mean = 3.91), and least wanted their leaders to be passive or avoidant (mean = 3.23).
The findings of this study showed that teachers generally expected their leaders to practise transformational leadership, which were
elements of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration during crisis. During
this period of crisis, teachers had high levels of expectations for individualized consideration from their leaders. They expected their
leaders to be visible, provide help, guidance and solutions as well as clear directions. According to Coelho et al. (2020), there was a lot
of anxiety and fear during the crisis. Therefore, teachers needed leaders to support them and to stay positive during these unprece­
dented times. This was in accordance with Morin (2016)’s finding that transformational leaders were instrumental in helping em­
ployees stay positive during a crisis (Morin, 2016).
The results showed that teachers wanted their leaders to act like transformational leaders during the Covid-19 crisis, rather than
transactional leaders or passive leaders. Transformational leadership has been characterised as a form of bottom-up and distributed

Table 14
Mean scores of the preferred and perceived leadership factors during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Preferred Leadership Perceived Leadership
Leadership Factors (Mean score) Std Deviation (Mean score) Std Deviation Mean difference

Idealized Influence 4.080 .70917 3.218 1.04466 0.862

Inspirational Motivation 4.143 .55611 3.274 1.02017 0.869
Intellectual Stimulation 4.188 .60597 3.118 .98791 1.07
Individualized Consideration 4.239 .59288 3.186 1.04748 1.053
Contingent Reward 3.952 .72719 2.976 1.13750 0.976
Management-by-exception 3.866 .62602 3.422 .85128 0.444
Laissez-faire leadership 3.226 .82151 2.903 .95402 0.323
N == 124

9
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

Table 15
Mean score differences of the preferred and perceived leadership factors during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Items Leadership actions and behavior Preferred Mean score Perceived Mean Difference

12 provides recognition/rewards when others reach their goals 4.29 3.09 1.2
18 gives personal attention to others who seem rejected 4.11 2.92 1.19
10 provides others with new ways of looking at problematic things 4.31 3.15 1.16
4 helps others develop themselves 4.5 3.43 1.07
17 gets others to rethink ideas that they had never questioned before. 4.13 3.06 1.07
3 makes others think about old problems in new ways 4.12 3.15 0.97
1 makes others feel good to be around him/her 4.27 3.32 0.95
16 helps other staff find meaning in their work. 4.17 3.22 0.95
8 enables others to have complete faith in him/her 4.19 3.26 0.93
5 tells others what to do if they want to be rewarded for their work 3.75 2.85 0.9
11 lets others know how he/she thinks they are doing. 4.1 3.21 0.89
9 provides appealing images about what we can do 3.98 3.15 0.83
19 calls to attention what others can get for what they accomplish 3.81 2.98 0.83
2 expresses with a few simple words what we could and should do 4.28 3.46 0.82
15 makes others proud to be associated with him/her 3.79 3.07 0.72
21 asks no more of others than what is absolutely essential 3.68 2.98 0.7
20 tells others the standards they have to know to carry out their work. 4.14 3.44 0.7
6 is satisfied when others meet agreed-upon standards 4.19 3.6 0.59
14 accepts that whatever others want to do is OK with him/her 2.96 2.73 0.23
13 does not try to change anything as long as status quo is working well 3.27 3.23 0.04
7 is content to let others continue working in the same ways as always 3.02 3.01 0.01

leadership in contrast to transactional leadership which could be characterised as a top-down and directive approach (Hallinger,
2003). Transformational leadership had been shown to be more flexible and adaptable than transactional leadership, leading to better
performance in times of crisis. The results obtained here showed that teachers shared this view, preferring a transformational lead­
ership approach to handle the Covid-19 crisis. It was interesting to note that even though transformational leadership was preferred,
teachers in this study also indicated that they sought high levels of transactional leadership, although not as high as transformational
leadership. Communities tended to prefer transformational leadership during a crisis, but also seek higher levels of transactional
leadership (Bussy & Paterson, 2012). This seemed to indicate that times of crisis caused people to seek out strong leadership whether it
was transformational or transactional. This was also reinforced by the low score of passive leadership in the survey. Bussy and
Paterson’s (2012) study also concluded that given a preference in a crisis scenario, transformational leadership was preferred, a
conclusion that this research agreed with.
Most of the respondents believed that leaders should provide vision, used appropriate symbols and images to help others focus on
their work, and attempted to make others feel that their work was significant. As vision was seen as a critical leadership characteristic,
a leader failing to ascertain future goals could have a negative impact on the organization (McCann, 2011). During a crisis, the teachers
least preferred a leader who was passive and avoidant and who left others to do as they wish. This was because teachers cannot do
without direction and support at such a time.
In this study, inspirational motivation was undoubtedly perceived from the leaders during the COVID -19 pandemic. The teachers
felt that there was an overall guiding vision set by their leaders. Moreover, they were directed through the unexpected changes and
their leaders showed gratification and recognition to their efforts. Overall, the close average scores indicated that teachers expected
most of the leadership styles except factor 6 and factor 7. The leadership styles; inspirational motivation, individualized consideration,
idealized influence, intellectual stimulation and contingent reward were styles that the teachers favoured whereas management by
exception and laissez faire were the least expected by the leaders during the pandemic. Transformational leaders were great role
models. They created vision and guided their followers through change by inspiring and motivating them. However, it was surprising
that management by exception acquired the highest average score. This might indicate that during the crisis, leaders tended to rely on
the teachers a lot and as long as their work went smoothly without disruptions they were content. During the crisis, it was possible that
though teachers had high expectations for their leaders to show interest in their wellbeing and be more involved in overlooking the
whole change, they also expected leaders to pay attention to those who were struggling and assisted accordingly. In contrast, it could
be deduced that leaders failed to meet this expectation, since the individualized consideration factor ranked lowest in the perception
about their leaders during this pandemic. Leaders who showed individualized consideration were deemed to be aware of their teams’
unique talents and supported them in developing their skills and behaviours.
Findings indicated that the level of perceived leadership involvement across the board was lower than the preferred level of
leadership involvement (overall mean difference =0.69). The findings of this study implied that leadership actions and behavior that
were exhibited by the educational leaders in handling the lockdown of education and the move to online teaching and learning during
the pandemic were moderately low and none of them had high score. This meant that teachers expected more of their leaders than the
latter were able to provide. Teachers preferred transformational leadership style, but perceived experience indicated a relatively
higher level of transactional leadership. While the Covid-19 outbreak had impacted the teachers, it had also impacted the school
leadership. Depending on the readiness of the educational settings, some leaders were not prepared to respond to such a crisis. The
priority roles and responsibilities of school leaders changed overnight. They had to ensure the well-being of their staff and students.
They also had to ensure that students were learning even though on-campus learning was suspended (Nannyonjo et al., 2020). Each

10
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

leader faced different challenges depending on their school readiness to address the crisis. Therefore, leaders might apply a moderate
style rather than on either extreme.
Another interesting observation was that when comparing the expected leadership and the exhibited leadership, the expected
scores were higher than the exhibited scores in all categories. This aligned with the observation earlier that strong leadership was
sought after during a crisis, and showed that many educational leaders fell short of these expectations. A study conducted by Boin and
Hart (2003) found that leaders would often fail to meet expectations in times of crisis due to various factors. One of these factors was
the inability for strong leaders to break out of leadership structures that were currently established in an organisation. In this study as
well, school leadership failed to meet expectations in all categories surveyed. It was often expected that leaders wouldl make large
reforms and changes to respond to crises, but it was often not possible due to factors such as overcoming current leadership structures.
To meet the challenges of Covid-19 and potential future crises, leaders should study the principles of transformational leadership and
how to apply them during times of crisis. A study by Fernandez et al. (2020) found that schools that operated with a shared trans­
formational leadership system were able to more quickly make the decision to swap to remote learning. This was because their
leadership system was able to give their schools a greater degree of flexibility, agility, and innovation. It also found three leadership
traits that were effective for adapting to crises like Covid-19. Firstly, leaders should demonstrate emotional intelligence, account­
ability, trustworthiness, integrity and other traits that allow leaders to place the interests of others above their own. This allowed
leaders to quickly overcome normalcy bias and take the appropriate steps and action to take care of their staff and students. The second
leadership trait that was noted was developing a system of distributed leadership. It was found that a top-down approach struggled to
cope with a crisis as complex and unpredictable as Covid-19. Instead, distributed leadership was found to have allowed autonomous,
self-managed teams to make decisions to quickly adapt to the crisis. In a transactional system where each decision and critical incident
must be handled by the principal or a small group of leaders, a large crisis threatened to overwhelm their ability to handle it (Dinham,
2005). This could lead to the crisis becoming even worse as the small group of leaders struggled to keep up with increasing demands. In
contrast, a transformational leadership system would empower leadership at all levels throughout the organisation able to adapt to
changing conditions, enabling an organisation to better handle a crisis.
The third leadership trait was communicating clearly through several mediums to all relevant stakeholders. Different groups
preferred updates and communication through different channels. Staff were found to prefer emails while students preferred social
media or text messages. By customising the message medium to each audience, leaders could ensure that their messages got out clearly
to avoid confusion. It was found that leaders with these transformational qualities were viewed more positively in times of crisis
compared to leaders without those qualities, showing that transformational leadership was more suited to handling a crisis.
The Laissez-faire leadership was a “hands-off” leadership style where there were very little or no direction to employees. Inter­
estingly, even as Laissez-faire leadership was much less preferred, concurrently teachers also perceived the least experience of Laissez-
faire leadership during the pandemic. This indicated that in crisis, leaders know not to abandon their team members. Leaders mostly
strived to do their part to cope with the crisis situation and did not let the teachers do their own things but guided them through the
difficult times.
It was also noteworthy that teachers expected contingent rewards for their hard work but the results indicated that teachers
perceived the contingent reward experience to be among the lowest. This could be a result of the effects of the crisis. According to
Whitehouse (2020), Covid-19’s impact on reward might either be a feast or famine. In the context of educational settings, many private
educational settings had no choice but to lay off staff to reduce salary payout or to implement pay cuts due to the decline of enrolment.
Despite educational leaders’ desire to reward their employees, this was not possible due to the reality of the economic downturn
(Griffith, 2020). Alternatively many educational leaders would apply the individualized consideration in order to help teachers to
focus on the vision and mission of the school, which was to continue to inspire teachers individually to promote quality learning for
students despite all the different restrictions and challenges.

6. Conclusion and recommendations

As mentioned in the beginning of this paper, the COVID-19 crisis affected people from all walks of life. In the initial stages, nobody
knew what should be done and needed to be done. In addition, there was no prepared guidelines as to how educational leaders should
respond and take action in a pandemic. School leaders were perforced to play vital roles in connecting and unifying the leadership team
and the stakeholders to move forward and keep education going for the children. The results from this research showed that teachers
expected and valued transformational leadership during a crisis.
This study might also inform educational leaders to apply transformational leadership to sustain the educational process during a
future crisis. The result also reinforced findings from other research that transformational leaders played a critical role during a crisis
(Hay, 2006; Anwar, 2017; Madanchian et al., 2017; Hudecheck et al., 2020; Yücel, 2021; Santoso et al., 2022). However, the size of the
organisation, experience and capabilities of the leaders, the maturity of the stakeholders, as well as the availability of the resources
played critical roles in affecting the leaders’ leadership style in approaching the crisis. As a result, most leaders could have displayed a
more moderate style of leadership that could not meet the expectations to cater the needs of the teachers’ educational settings.
Future research could replicate this study with a larger sample size that is representative of the population. By increasing the
sample size, it would also increase the number of respondents from other teaching settings and different genders.
Future similar research could adopt a mixed-method approach using both quantitative and qualitative methodology. The survey
methodology of this study restricted individuals to respond only to what they were asked, thereby limiting their views and opinions. In
a mixed method approach, subjective feedback received through open-ended questions or including interviews of teachers from
various teaching settings to elicit their expected and perceived actions and behavior of their educational leaders could enhance the

11
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

richness and depths of the results. It could also document in more details the challenges faced by both teachers and leaders in
responding to educational change during the crisis.
As we approach the end of the pandemic crisis it may be appropriate to conduct a follow up research to examine the evolution of the
teachers’ needs, their attitudes as well as the growth and development of the leadership itself. Using the data and framework of the
research, new leadership styles and guidelines could be developed for future reference in response to another similar crisis situation.

Funding

The publication of this work is funded by Xian Jiaotong-Liverpool University.

References

Ain, U. S., Safri, S. N. A., Thevadas, R., Noordin, N. K., Rahman, A., Sekawie, Z., Ideris, Aini, & Sultan, M. T. H. (2020). COVID-19 outbreak in Malaysia: Actions taken
by the Malaysian government. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 97, 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.05.093
Alahmad, Y. Y. (2016). Understanding the relationship between transformational leadership styles: Idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation,
individualized consideration and product innovation among manufacturing and services firms: The role of open system. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?
accession=toledo1460983654&disposition=inline.
Allen, L. (2010). Communication and the full range leadership model: A study of the relationship between leadership style and communication apprehension, communication
competence and listening styles. https://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.9/1029/Allen_Lucille_Thesis-2010-01-06.pdf?sequence=2.
Anderson, Jill (2020). School leadership during crisis. Harvard EdCast. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/20/04/harvard-edcast-school-leadership-during-crisis.
Antonakis, John, Avolio, Bruce J, & Sivasubramaniam, Nagaraj (2003). Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4, 2003.
Anwar, K. (2017). The role of effective leadership in crisis management: Study of private companies in kurdistan. Qalaai Zanist Scientific Journal, 2(4), 326–338.
https://doi.org/10.25212/lfu.qzj.2.4.14
Arenas, F. J., Tucker, J., & Connelly, D. A. (2017). Transforming future air force leaders of tomorrow. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/
Volume-31_Issue-3/F-Arenas.pdf.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0090-2616(90)90061-s
Bhaduri, R. M. (2019). Leveraging culture and leadership in crisis management. European Journal of Training and Development, 43(5/6), 534–549. https://doi.org/
10.1108/EJTD-10-2018-0109
Boin, A., & Hart, P. T. (2003). Public leadership in times of crisis: mission impossible? Public Administration Review, 63(5), 544–553.
Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of COVID-19 on education. https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-education.
Bussy, N. M., & Paterson, A. (2012). Crisis leadership styles—Bligh versus Gillard: A content analysis of Twitter posts on the Queensland floods. Journal of Public
Affairs, 12(4), 326–332.
Coelho, CM, Suttiwan, P, Arato, N, & Zsido, AN (2020). On the Nature of Fear and Anxiety Triggered by COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581314
Desbrow, P. C. (2016). Transformational leadership through power and influence. https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2016/03/12/transformational-leadership-through-
powerand-influence/.
Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of educational administration.
Douglas N. H. (2020). Douglas N. Harris. Retrieved October 04, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/experts/douglas-harris/.
Edeh, Michael Onyema1, Nwafor, Chika Eucheria, Faith, Ayobamidele Obafemi, Shuvro, Sen, Fyneface, Grace Atonye, Sharma, Aabha, & Alsayed, Alhuseen Omar
(2020). Impact of coronavirus pandemic on education. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(13). www.iiste.org. ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
2020file:///F:/XJTLU/Research%20in%20XJTLU/Research%20Ed%20Mgt%20Ldrshp%20COVID19/52821-56584-1-PB%20Edeh%20et%20al%202022.pdf.
Fernandez, Antonio Arturo and Shaw, Graham Paul. (2020). Academic Leadership in a Time of Crisis: The Coronavirus and COVID-19. Journal of Leadership Studies.
Spring; 14(1): 39–45. doi:10.1002/jls.21684.
Fullan, M., Quinn, J., Drummy, M., & Gardner, M. (2020). Education reimagined: The future of learning—A collaborative position paper between New Pedagogies for Deep
Learning and Microsoft Education. http://aka.ms/HybridLearningPaper.
Griffith, M. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 recession on teaching positions. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/impact-covid-19-
recession-teaching-positions.
Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A., Kepner, K., Farnsworth, D., & Clark, J. L. (2019). Transformational Leadership: The Transformation of Managers and Associates. https://
edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hr020.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3),
329–352.
Harris, A. (2020). COVID-19 – School leadership crisis? Journal of Professional Capital and Community. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0045
Hay, I. (2006). Transformational leadership: Characteristics and criticisms. E Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership, 5(2), 1–19. https://www.academia.
edu/9121644/Transformational_leadership_characteristics_and_criticisms.
Hudecheck, M., Siren, C., Grichnik, D., & Wincent, J. (2020). How companies can respond to the coronavirus. MIT Sloan Management Review, 9 March, available
https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-companies-can-respond-to-the-coronavirus/.
Hughes, T. A. (2014). Idealized, inspirational, and intellectual leaders in the social sector: Transformational Leadership and the Kravis Prize. https://core.ac.uk/download/
pdf/148358893.pdf.
Madanchian, M., Hussein, N., Noordin, F., & Taherdoost, H. (2017). Leadership effectiveness measurement and its effect on organization outcomes. Procedia
Engineering, 181, 1043–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.505
McCann, G. D. (2011). A study to examine teacher perceptions of leadership characteristics that middle school principals should have to be an effective instructional leader
(Doctoral dissertation) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/214065828.pdf19.
Moon, S. E., Van Dam, P. J., & Kitsos, A. (2019). Measuring transformational leadership in establishing nursing care excellence. Healthcare, 7(132). https://doi.org/
10.3390/healthcare7040132
Morin, A. (2016). How the best leaders turn an organisational crisis into their company’s finest hour. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/amymorin/2016/04/06/how-
the-best-leaders-turn-an-organizational-crisis-into-their-companys-finest-hour/#7719a0f84c3b32.
Nannyonjo, H., Fernando, C. A., Oommen, A., & Sampat, S. (2020). School leadership in uncertain times. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/
school-leadership-uncertain-times.
OECD. (2020). Education and COVID-19: Focusing on the long-term impact of school closures. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/education-and-covid-
19-focusing-onthe-long-term-impact-of-school-closures-2cea926e/.
Rothfelder, K., Ottenbacher, M. C., & Harrington, R. J. (2016). The impact of transformational, transactional and non-leadership styles on employee job satisfaction in the
German hospitality industry. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.900.9093&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Russell, J. (2017). A meta-analysis: The full range of leadership model impacting policing organizations. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147838081.pdf.

12
L.H. Goh International Journal of Educational Research 122 (2023) 102253

Santoso, NR, Sulistyaningtyas, ID, & Pratama, BP. (2022). Transformational leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic: Strengthening employee engagement through
internal communication. Journal of Communication Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/01968599221095182, 01968599221095182PMCID: PMC9019500.
Schleicher, A. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on education: Insights from education at a glance 2020. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/the-impact-of-covid-
19-on-education-insights-education-at-a-glance-2020.pdf33.
Sutherland, I. E. (2017). Learning and growing: Trust, leadership, and response to crisis. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JEA-10-2015-0097
Towler, A. (2019). The qualities of transformational leaders and what distinguishes them from transactional leaders. https://www.ckju.net/en/dossier/qualities-
transformational-leaders-and-what-distinguishes-them-transactional-leaders.
United Nations. (2020). Policy brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_
policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf.
Vilhauer, H. (2018). An investigation into full range leadership and leadership development methods in public parks and recreation organizations in California. https://
repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1423&context=diss.
Walker, A. (2020). University agility in the era of COVID-19. Monash University. https://www.monash.edu.my/news-and-events/pages/latest/articles/2020/
university-agility-in-the-era-of-covid-1934.
Whitehouse, E. (2020). How will reward strategies change after Covid? People Management. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/long-reads/articles/what-will-
reward-look-like-post-covid.
Wongyanon, S., Wijaya, A. F., Mardiyono, & Soeaidy, M. S (2015). Analysis of the Influence of Leadership Styles of Chief Executives to Organizational Performance of
Local Organization in Thailand (A Case Study of Transformational, Transactional and Laissez-Faire Styles of Leadership in Pattaya City, Laemchabang City
Municipality and Chonburi Provincial Organization). International Journal of Applied Sociology, 5(2), 76–83. http://www.sapub.org/global/showpaperpdf.aspx?
doi=10.5923/j.ijas.20150502.02.
Yücel, I. (2021). Transformational leadership and turnover intentions: The mediating role of employee performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Administrative
Sciences, 11(81), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11030081
Zhang, Zhe, Jia, Ming, & Gu, Lihong (2012). Transformational leadership in crisis situations: Evidence from the People’s Republic of China. In , 23. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management (pp. 1–25). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.639027.

13